State v. Hackley
2017 Ohio 4094
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant David E. Hackley was indicted for one count of domestic violence (originally charged as a third-degree felony) and pleaded guilty to a reduced charge: domestic violence, a fourth-degree felony.
- Plea agreement acknowledged potential imprisonment of 6–18 months, a $5,000 maximum fine, waiver of jury trial, and voluntary plea; Hackley signed a written waiver and plea was accepted.
- The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI); during a post-plea exchange the court questioned Hackley’s ability to understand written PSI questions, but Hackley affirmed he could read and had signed the waiver.
- At sentencing the court imposed 14 months’ imprisonment (within the 6–18 month statutory range), a $250 fine, and repayment of court-appointed defense costs; the court stated it had considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and Hackley’s ability to pay.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief identifying four potential assignments of error; Hackley did not file a pro se brief. The court conducted an independent Anders review and found no issues of arguable merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.12 sentencing factors | State: Court addressed and applied 2929.11/2929.12 in hearing and judgment entry | Hackley: (implicit) court may have failed to properly consider factors | Held: Court sufficiently considered 2929.12 factors; no arguable merit to challenge |
| Whether 14-month sentence was an abuse of discretion / contrary to law | State: Sentence within statutory range and court expressly considered required factors | Hackley: (implicit) 14 months excessive/abusive | Held: 14 months is within statutory range; supported by record; not contrary to law |
| Whether plea was knowing and intelligent given later exchange about reading/form | State: Plea colloquy and signed written waiver satisfied Crim.R. 11; later PSI exchange did not undermine voluntariness | Hackley: (implicit) exchange raises doubt about understanding of plea/rights | Held: Plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; no arguable merit to attack plea |
| Whether ordering indigent defendant to pay fine and defense costs was proper | State: Court considered present and future ability to pay and found defendant not indigent for these obligations | Hackley: (implicit) previously found indigent for counsel; repayment order improper | Held: Court complied with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) and properly imposed fine and repayment after considering ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel withdrawing when appeal lacks arguable merit)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (guidance for reviewing felony sentences and when a sentence is not contrary to law)
- State v. Rodeffer, 5 N.E.3d 1069 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (discussing Kalish guidance and R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard)
- State v. Turner, 826 N.E.2d 266 (Ohio 2005) (recognizing presumption that a written waiver of constitutional rights is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)